I just wanted to make it clear that when you tell me all those lovely things about your god they have absolutely no effect on me. They don't touch one emotion. I just shake my head. I don't dispute your right to say them. Just don't imagine that you are honing in on my soul and about to convert me. Words won't do it.

Thank you for the explanation. Yes, I understand. My purpose here is not to convert anyone. I realize very well that this is a poor medium for real communication.

My purpose is two-fold. First to explain, as best I can, the teachings of the Catholic Church. I have yet to run into a person on the forum that does not believe and that has a good understanding of those teachings. It’s like a creationist who rails against evolution but doesn’t know the science. I would love to see someone who truly understands the teachings of the Catholic Church and still chooses not to believe. That person I would seriously listen to.

The second is to learn more about those teachings myself. In the four years (off and on) that I’ve been on the forum I have learned an amazing amount as I do the research to answer the questions thoughtfully, honestly and accurately. I can tell you that in all that time not one thing has shaken my faith. Instead everything that I have learned has fit together like a KenKen puzzle. The mystery of life is like a lock and the Church is the key.

yeah, communication with adult atheists who are treated as equal human beings with the ability to think for themselves is completely incompatible with true communication.what we need for true communication is to be strapped in a chair and given mind altering substances and force fed your teachings and the teachings of those you have faith in until we understand that you believe everything is just the way jesus wants it...life is not a mystery, the church is like a lock and awareness is the key.

Firstly he definitely musn't be sent to hell - that would not be fair at all (and I don't think he is technically a pedophile if he has not acted on his desires).

God thinks he is: Matthew 5:28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I would assume that thinking and dreaning about raping a 5 year old boy would equally mean that they had already committed the offence, wouldn't you?

However, it was pointed out that the pedophile had repented and asked for forgiveness and before having another impure thought , had died.

This means that

Quote

Secondly, I decree that when he arrives in Heaven he is immediately given every insight and immediately sees how ridiculous and stupid were his previous desires which instantly and completely cease from that instant.

Is completely pointless and only a stupid god would do that. Don’t you remember, he has sincerely said he was sorry – this implies he has no intention of doing it again.

Therefore there is absolutely no reason why he should have any punishment whatsoever.

If I may contrast this with the horrible person, Ann Frank – she died a Jew – She died a person outside of Christ – she is in Hell forever and ever and undergoing the most horrific torture imaginable.

Quote

And thirdly, he will meet a beautiful (and appropriately aged) woman who will show him what he has truly been missing all those years.

Next! : - )

Idiot – there is no fornication or marriage in heaven – the lusts of the flesh are left behind – read your bible…

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Secondly, I decree that when he arrives in Heaven he is immediately given every insight and immediately sees how ridiculous and stupid were his previous desires which instantly and completely cease from that instant.

Is completely pointless and only a stupid god would do that. Don’t you remember, he has sincerely said he was sorry – this implies he has no intention of doing it again.

Therefore there is absolutely no reason why he should have any punishment whatsoever.

I would think, by your moniker, that you might have experience with people and would know the silliness of what you’re saying. Just because a person has no intention of doing it again doesn’t mean that they won’t have the desire to do so, especially if it’s serious enough that he’s been doing it all his life. Even the desire for sin isn’t tolerated in Heaven – the place of perfect love. He needs to be freed from the future desires for sin and the affects of the previous desires.

Dominic didn’t say anything about punishment. Where are you getting that?

My purpose is two-fold. First to explain, as best I can, the teachings of the Catholic Church. I have yet to run into a person on the forum that does not believe and that has a good understanding of those teachings. It’s like a creationist who rails against evolution but doesn’t know the science. I would love to see someone who truly understands the teachings of the Catholic Church and still chooses not to believe. That person I would seriously listen to.

Here's the problem. I have been told by people of various religions that each of their is the right one and that if only I could immerse myself in the teachings of their version I'd be enlightened, etc.

So now I'm in the position, if I am interested, of picking which religion to go all academic on. And my choices are in no way limited to the christian variations. So why should I choose catholicism rather than something suggested by southern baptists or hindus or muslims or mayans?

I certainly understand your point. For me to proclaim my atheism in terms of a specifically catholic god would at least imply that I knew enough about catholicism to reject that religion specifically. But I'm a generalist, and I reject every religion for the same reason: it doesn't fit even one tiny bit with the reality that I experience.

Why would a god do nonsensical things. Naked Mole Rats, for instance. The live in burrows under the ground in parts of Africa. They have adapted to living in their low-oxygen environment because they more or less close off their burrows and not only breathe, creating CO2, but they far, creating methane. And yet they thrive. So here is a god making all the animals and while he makes elephants for republicans and kittens for kids and mice for Disneyland, he also takes the time to whip out Naked Mole Rats.

Evolution explains such variation without blinking an eye. A god coming up with that genetic variation is a bit too much for me.

Now I know that catholics finally learned to accept evolution, etc. and that such mysteries aren't too confusing to you, but I don't get to argue with catholics too often, so I spend less time finding reasons to go after your religion's specific beliefs. I won't even joke about your cracker and wine thing here, though I am tempted.

In any case, religion, as well as a few other social institutions such as government, seeks to control as many variables in life as possible. And that's fine, except for the part that deeply embedded institutions have no flexibility. And lacking that flexibility, they are fragile. And as fragile institutions, they have to spend most of their time in survival mode, excusing their silliness, demanding their flaws by hidden and insisting that their truth is the final one.

You catholics should just settle for being happy that you have some followers. The same should be true for the baptists and methodists and muslims and zoroastrians and such. The cargo cult people of the island of the south pacific island Vanuatu are doing religion right. The invented it on the spur of the moment when they needed it, they follow is devotedly, and yet they somehow manage to keep their beliefs out of my political system and away from my gay son and to themselves. Once all religions do that, I'll quit posting to sites like this and quietly accept their beliefs as harmless. I won't accept their beliefs, but I will not fight that which does no harm.

Until then, no thanks. I don't need to know more about something that is based on nothing. Apparently filling beliefs with minutiae and glorious tales and playing on fear sucks people in. I ain't gonna take the chance.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

Thank you for the explanation. So here’s how I understand what you’re saying. I allow that this may not be correct. It’s just how it comes across.

You don’t believe in any of the religions, but you don’t know any of the details or theology of any of them either. The reason you don’t believe is because you can’t figure out why God, if he exists, does some of the things that we find in reality. Even though you don’t know anything about them, you attack them all equally, and the reason you attack them is because they interfere with your life. And your life (and I’m extrapolating here because you didn’t say) is right because you say it is.

Hmm, I daresay that’s a decent description for many people on the forum.

Now, of course, you’ll bring in things that are – and I say this with complete sincerity – evil, such as the sexual abuse of young boys by priests, or horrible, such as the crusades, or sickly tragic, such as Westboro Baptist Church, and you’ll righteously throw down your anti-theism glove in order to make a stand. But face it, that approach is no different than the approach of many others including creationists. To make broad judgments based on shallow understanding and narrow views is no way to answer the important questions in life.

If I really wanted to convert you, we’d be talking directly about Jesus Christ. I am Catholic because of my personal relationship with Him and not by an accident of history. If you had to pick a religion to go all academic on, then I would start with the one who’s founder had the most audacious claims. Why start with religions founded by men, when there is one available supposedly founded by God Himself. If you study him, his teachings, and what his followers did, with honesty and integrity, then you would be Catholic.

But you don’t need all that theology to know there is a God. A rational, intellectual look at life, the universe and everything would conclude that there has to be something out there. Unfortunately, many people’s ability to see reality as it presents itself to us was darkened by the Enlightenment.

But you don’t need all that theology to know there is a God. A rational, intellectual look at life, the universe and everything would conclude that there has to be something out there. Unfortunately, many people’s ability to see reality as it presents itself to us was darkened by the Enlightenment.

It is an interesting observation. A rational, intellectual look at life has lead quite a lot of people to conclude that there is no evidence for god, and that the universe works, and that it is up to us to figure out how it works.

I understand that for many, the fact that the universe works is taken as evidence that something HAD to have designed that universe. I am one of those atheists who will allow (although I believe that the universe's natural order is inherent) for the possibility of the universe being designed and created .

However, I am also one of those who cannot understand how people can draw a straight, uninterrupted line from "the universe has a source" to "the universe is created by a being who desires our worship, places that knowledge in obscure texts, hides themselves from us and has a reward for us when we die".

We are born, we live, and then we die. The evidence seems pretty consistent with that. The evidence seems pretty consistent with a universe that existed for billions of years before us, and will likely carry on for billions of years after us. Why try to sell ancient stories of magical foreverness? I may as well propose that when I die, I get to be a character in a Marvel Superhero Universe. The evidence for such an occurrence seems to be on a par with the evidence for God and the afterlife. There's even movies about stories about what happens in that universe. It must be real then.

You live. You die. Everyone who has every lived, dies. So murder becomes "moving a person from their extremely temporary and inconvenient existence to their permanent one". What's the problem?

The other problem of heaven. You are in eternal bliss. You have no wants, no needs, no sorry, no pain. This is extremely appealing from a point of view of a person who is physically alive, but once you're there, what's the point of anything? Do you even have a choice of whether you want to continue or not? Are you even capable of being bored, or curious, or sad?

However, I am also one of those who cannot understand how people can draw a straight, uninterrupted line from "the universe has a source" to "the universe is created by a being who desires our worship, places that knowledge in obscure texts, hides themselves from us and has a reward for us when we die".

I agree with what you say about the straight, uninterrupted line. I’m not saying, because I don’t think it’s true, that you can get there without help from that being. I’d be interested in exploring the topic with you, i.e. what can be reasoned and what can’t, if you’d like. I would suggest the debate room, not because it’s a debate, but because it’s easier to avoid distractions. These open threads get way off topic and I’m one of the culprits. I bite when someone throws something out there that I can answer. This thread is an example.

The other problem of heaven. You are in eternal bliss. You have no wants, no needs, no sorry, no pain. This is extremely appealing from a point of view of a person who is physically alive, but once you're there, what's the point of anything? Do you even have a choice of whether you want to continue or not? Are you even capable of being bored, or curious, or sad?

Heaven sounds a lot like a different state of being dead.

LOL. As I said in another post, our imaginations are inadequate when it comes to Heaven. We can really map out Hell, see Constantine or The Screwtape Letters as examples, but Heaven is another matter.

As you said, it’s a state of eternal bliss. Imagine the most exciting and intense pleasure you can. Multiply that by a million and you get in the direction. But then you asked some questions, such as “what’s the point of anything”? If it’s all true, that is God created us for the purpose of union and communion with him, then when we get to Heaven we will be at our ultimate purpose. Everything else will have no point. Whatever we “do” there it will be what we are made for.

You ask if we have a choice of whether to continue or not. I think that we will, but the question of not continuing won’t even cross our mind. We will be eternally and completely filled with the pure joy of complete and unconditional love. And no, I don’t think we would be capable of being bored or sad in that situation. Curious, though? You know, I don’t think so either. Anything that we’d be curious about that matters, we would know. There would be no barriers between us and Absolute Truth. Anything that doesn’t matter we won’t care about because, well, it doesn’t matter.

Of course, that goes against one of my “lines.” I have a list of questions that I’d like answered when I get there (assuming I get to Heaven). Who killed JFK? Is there life elsewhere? How do Penn and Teller do their magic? What’s up with meggings? But honestly, when I get there I probably won’t care about any of that.

As you said, it’s a state of eternal bliss. Imagine the most exciting and intense pleasure you can. Multiply that by a million and you get in the direction. But then you asked some questions, such as “what’s the point of anything”? If it’s all true, that is God created us for the purpose of union and communion with him, then when we get to Heaven we will be at our ultimate purpose. Everything else will have no point. Whatever we “do” there it will be what we are made for.

You ask if we have a choice of whether to continue or not. I think that we will, but the question of not continuing won’t even cross our mind. We will be eternally and completely filled with the pure joy of complete and unconditional love. And no, I don’t think we would be capable of being bored or sad in that situation. Curious, though? You know, I don’t think so either. Anything that we’d be curious about that matters, we would know. There would be no barriers between us and Absolute Truth. Anything that doesn’t matter we won’t care about because, well, it doesn’t matter.

If I were a good christian and felt that I was doing a good enough job to get into heaven and then was told I would suffer eternal bliss when i got there, I think I'd go rob a bank to get out of it. I could deal with an eternity burning in hell better than I could with constant bliss.

Constant bliss would cease to be bliss after about three minutes. From that point on it would be pure torture. Because happiness sucks big-time when it is forced on you.

Burning in hell sucks big time too, I assume. But at least feeling that pain would be consistent with the environment.

I will never understand the appeal of heaven, with or without the constant bliss. Living forever? I have no interest. Especially if the illusion of free will is gone.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

It is very easy to see that most modern humans do not follow religions in the same way that the earliest Christians did. Do you disagree? What do you think the very earliest Christians did - go to church in their Sunday best every week? Seriously, you might believe that you have the right god, and the right religion, etc., but your beliefs are mired in historical evolution of religions and gods.

If I were a good christian and felt that I was doing a good enough job to get into heaven and then was told I would suffer eternal bliss when i got there, I think I'd go rob a bank to get out of it. I could deal with an eternity burning in hell better than I could with constant bliss.

Well, then there you go. If that’s your decision, then you won’t be surprised when you end up there.

Seriously, though, is that how you live your life now? You make choices that cause you pain, loneliness, despair, anger and misery, and not choices that bring you comfort, joy and happiness? Yeah, that’s a psychological disorder.

Constant bliss would cease to be bliss after about three minutes. From that point on it would be pure torture. Because happiness sucks big-time when it is forced on you.

And what do you base this on? I can guarantee that you have not experienced even three nanoseconds of the bliss you will experience in Heaven. See this is the problem. Not only do atheists not know the theology of what they are attacking, but a lot of what they think they do know is wrong.

It is very easy to see that most modern humans do not follow religions in the same way that the earliest Christians did. Do you disagree? What do you think the very earliest Christians did - go to church in their Sunday best every week? Seriously, you might believe that you have the right god, and the right religion, etc., but your beliefs are mired in historical evolution of religions and gods.

Why yes. If you look at the Acts of the Apostles and the documents of the early Church, then you’ll see that they did go to church every Sunday. Not sure if it was in their “best” or not, but it makes sense they would. How did the Jews dress to go to the Temple?

Do you have any idea at all how many sects of Christianity exist today? You do realize that your version is not agreed upon by all Christians, don't you? You keep proclaiming things from YOUR perspective (your SPAG), as though all of Christianity is in agreement? You can't be ignorant of the challenge this poses for anyone who wants to take it seriously? There is simply not enough time for a person to check it all out. Besides, you've got to overcome the freebie from the Evangelicals, just accept Jesus, and you're in!

Do you have any idea at all how many sects of Christianity exist today? You do realize that your version is not agreed upon by all Christians, don't you? You keep proclaiming things from YOUR perspective (your SPAG), as though all of Christianity is in agreement? You can't be ignorant of the challenge this poses for anyone who wants to take it seriously? There is simply not enough time for a person to check it all out. Besides, you've got to overcome the freebie from the Evangelicals, just accept Jesus, and you're in!

I do and it is unfortunate. But it only poses a challenge to someone who is only posing. There’s plenty of time, because plenty of people have done it. And if this were really a challenge and not an excuse, then yes, there’s always the freebie. But it’s not. It’s a red herring (or a strawman or a boy band. Not sure which.)

I would argue that a person who wants to take it seriously will have a very, very difficult time determining who is correct. Remember, there is still Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism to name a few. And they are not single sect religions.

Every one of those MAJOR sects are as correct as you to the outsider. You don't hold the truth until you show that all others are wrong, or they show you that they are more accurate, or correct.

Hmm, first you don’t have to show that all others are wrong to know that you hold the truth. For example, you haven’t shown that any of these are wrong, yet you claim to hold the truth.

Second, so look at them. Seriously look at them. Until then it’s just posing.

Third, make it easy on yourself. As I said before, start with the ones that make the most audacious claims, the ones whose founder claims to be God. If I had to choose a religion I’d want one founded by God Himself.

With that list, (and it’s a short list) what does the founder actually teach and how does that fit with the big questions of life?

Let’s suppose you narrow that list down to one (which should be easy since it starts as a list of one), now which of the 2700-ish sects of that religion should you follow? To make it easier on yourself look at it before it split up. Look at the first thousand years or even the first few hundred years and see how they lived their faith. Then live yours like they did. At that point you’ll be Catholic.

If I were a good christian and felt that I was doing a good enough job to get into heaven and then was told I would suffer eternal bliss when i got there, I think I'd go rob a bank to get out of it. I could deal with an eternity burning in hell better than I could with constant bliss.

Well, then there you go. If that’s your decision, then you won’t be surprised when you end up there.

Seriously, though, is that how you live your life now? You make choices that cause you pain, loneliness, despair, anger and misery, and not choices that bring you comfort, joy and happiness? Yeah, that’s a psychological disorder.

No, I don't go looking for that range of experiences, life provides them free.

And they define each other, in a sense. How do I know aim happy? Partly because I am no longer sad, or indifferent, or in pain, or paying child support. Ho do I know when I am sad? In part because I am no longer happy. I am no longer content. I no longer have a father or a job or a dog.

It is the differences between those states that define them as much as any other factor. Bliss, when it is the only emotion available, is no more blissful than a kick in the balls. When he kicking stops, it is bliss again. Until you can't choose to get kicked. Then it is like a kick in the balls again.

If there is a heaven, I would much prefer one that allows me to do something besides feel good. I'm sorry, I just need variety.

For all you know, god defines bliss as watching endless reruns of Dancing With The Stars, overdubbed with accordion music. If true, you'll want to join me in hell very quickly.

Constant bliss would cease to be bliss after about three minutes. From that point on it would be pure torture. Because happiness sucks big-time when it is forced on you.

And what do you base this on? I can guarantee that you have not experienced even three nanoseconds of the bliss you will experience in Heaven. See this is the problem. Not only do atheists not know the theology of what they are attacking, but a lot of what they think they do know is wrong.[/quote]

First of all, do you have biblical passages that support this bliss thing? I think Genisis 9:21 refers to something else.

Second, not knowing the theology is the least of our problems. It is impossible for us to know it enough to parry with every theist who shows up here anyway. You guys have too many versions of yourselves. Third, I don't need to know diddly about theology to dismiss it. How much expertise did you gain regarding Zoroastrian theology before dismissing it?

Case closed.

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I agree with what you say about the straight, uninterrupted line. I’m not saying, because I don’t think it’s true, that you can get there without help from that being. I’d be interested in exploring the topic with you, i.e. what can be reasoned and what can’t, if you’d like. I would suggest the debate room, not because it’s a debate, but because it’s easier to avoid distractions. These open threads get way off topic and I’m one of the culprits. I bite when someone throws something out there that I can answer. This thread is an example.

I'd be interested in exploring the topic in a separate thread although from your response, I'm not certain what your position is. I highlighted the quote that appears to summarize your position: "To find the logical, uninterrupted progression from 'diety exits' to 'worship of god is necessary to achieve peace in the afterlife', I have to have help from God (ie, I have to already believe that god exists)". Is this correct?

If you like, feel free to create a topic in the forum you think best and link it or message me.

I may as well propose that when I die, I get to be a character in a Marvel Superhero Universe.

I’m not sure which one I’d like to be. Here on Earth is one thing, but for all eternity? They all have their problems!

Forever fighting for truth and justice against clearly-defined evil-doers against long odds and prevailing, with the occasional holiday special and swimsuit issue thrown in? How is that not better than basically just being (as Nick put it) being in a vegetative state?

Partly tongue in cheek, of course. But this is the problem with heaven; it sounds a lot like the idealized version of what the animal part of us wants. No pain, no decisions, no thinking, just bliss. Forever. Not even a chance to want to feel something different for a nanosecond so you can have something to compare that bliss to, nor any desire. At all. Forever.

You live. You die. Everyone who has every lived, dies. So murder becomes "moving a person from their extremely temporary and inconvenient existence to their permanent one". What's the problem?

Wow. Are you saying that murder is not a bad thing? Or is that sarcasm or something?

I'm saying, given the "knowledge" that physical death just turns you into a spiritual immortal NOW rather than later, how can killing anyone be considered a bad thing? Prohibition against murder as immoral, in a world where an afterlife is a given, seems senseless.

As you said, it’s a state of eternal bliss. Imagine the most exciting and intense pleasure you can. Multiply that by a million and you get in the direction. But then you asked some questions, such as “what’s the point of anything”?

That's just your biology talking. All the animal that you are wants, is pleasure. By creating a fiction that both promises you you wont die, and promises you the most pleasure you'll ever have times infinite, you have created your own belief carrot. Now anything that threatens that belief, takes away the carrot. And you want that carrot. Even though there's no real evidence that carrot exists, except a collective desire that a lot of people also want that carrot to be real.

As I've said before, there's a HUG gap between 'diety exists' and 'worship God for eternal bliss in an afterlife'. If you want to discuss that outside this forum, I'm down with that.

Every one of those MAJOR sects are as correct as you to the outsider. You don't hold the truth until you show that all others are wrong, or they show you that they are more accurate, or correct.

Hmm, first you don’t have to show that all others are wrong to know that you hold the truth. For example, you haven’t shown that any of these are wrong, yet you claim to hold the truth.

Second, so look at them. Seriously look at them. Until then it’s just posing.

Third, make it easy on yourself. As I said before, start with the ones that make the most audacious claims, the ones whose founder claims to be God. If I had to choose a religion I’d want one founded by God Himself.

With that list, (and it’s a short list) what does the founder actually teach and how does that fit with the big questions of life?

Let’s suppose you narrow that list down to one (which should be easy since it starts as a list of one), now which of the 2700-ish sects of that religion should you follow? To make it easier on yourself look at it before it split up. Look at the first thousand years or even the first few hundred years and see how they lived their faith. Then live yours like they did. At that point you’ll be Catholic.

I don't claim to have any truth. I am just one of those annoying humans who isn't afraid to point out that no god has ever been demonstrated to exist. Therefore, all religions that claim a god are problematic right out of the gate. BTW, I was raised Roman Catholic, been through the sacraments, ate Jesus, yadda, yadda.

Sounds to me like you've filtered everything down to a fine point that suits you. I can't blame you for that, and I wouldn't want you to miss out on a communion, or a visit to the confession booth to cleanse your sins. But the whole thing smacks of mythology, ritual, and adherence to the rules of old white men who wear robes and hats. Not impressed. And to be honest, none of that pomp and circumstance even remotely mirrors the message of that guy...the one who had no possessions, walked around preaching...twelve apostles? Jesus! Yeah, that guy.

I don't recall anywhere in the good book where Jesus tells us to go be a Catholic and follow their rules? Can you point that out to me? Maybe where Jesus said "let the Pope take it from here"?

And they define each other, in a sense. How do I know aim happy? Partly because I am no longer sad, or indifferent, or in pain, or paying child support. Ho do I know when I am sad? In part because I am no longer happy. I am no longer content. I no longer have a father or a job or a dog.

Hmm, I have to respectfully disagree. (I realize you say “in a sense” and “partly,” so I’m thinking through what that means.) Being happy is more than not being sad. I agree that we appreciate the good more when we’ve experienced the bad, but I don’t see the one as defining the other. A tragic person may not ever feel joy, but they know that they are sad. We can (or we say we can) even feel happy and sad at the same time.

Rather, happiness occurs when your desires are realized. What makes me happy is getting the things I long for. The more I long for it the happier I am when I get it.

Constant bliss would cease to be bliss after about three minutes. From that point on it would be pure torture. Because happiness sucks big-time when it is forced on you.

And what do you base this on? I can guarantee that you have not experienced even three nanoseconds of the bliss you will experience in Heaven.

First of all, do you have biblical passages that support this bliss thing?

Yes, there are many teachings along these lines, both in Sacred Scripture, Old and New Testaments, and in Sacred Tradition, e.g. teachings of the Early Church Fathers, that describe Heaven as a place of peace, of rewards, feasting, a prize to be treasured.

But you neatly sidestepped my question. You say that Heaven would be pure torture, which is a ridiculous and unfounded claim.